Literature DB >> 27519770

Does contextual strength modulate the subordinate bias effect? A reply to Kellas and Vu.

K S Binder1, K Rayner2.   

Abstract

In their reply to Binder and Rayner (1998), Kellas and Vu (1999) raised questions about the criteria we used to exclude items from the Kellas, Martin, Yehling, Herman, and Vu (1995) stimulus set. In this reply, we further document these criteria and also address the issue of local versus published norms. We continue to believe that the stimulus set used by Kellas et al. (1995) was problematic. We also address the issue of strength of context, a concept used in earlier research that dealt with the subordinate bias effect. We argue that the contexts used by Kellas et al. (1995) were no stronger than the contexts previously used that established this effect. Therefore, we continue to think that our finding that context does not eliminate the subordinate bias effect is valid.

Year:  1999        PMID: 27519770     DOI: 10.3758/BF03210843

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  9 in total

1.  Contextual strength and the subordinate bias effect: comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf.

Authors:  K Rayner; K S Binder; S A Duffy
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  1999-11

2.  Strength of context does modulate the subordinate bias effect: a reply to Binder and Rayner.

Authors:  G Kellas; H Vu
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1999-09

3.  Influence of contextual features on the activation of ambiguous word meanings.

Authors:  S T Paul; G Kellas; M Martin; M B Clark
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words.

Authors:  K Rayner; L Frazier
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: effects of prior encounter and discourse topic.

Authors:  K S Binder; R K Morris
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity.

Authors:  K Rayner; S A Duffy
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1986-05

7.  The processing of homophonic homographs during reading: evidence from eye movement studies.

Authors:  J M Pacht; K Rayner
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  1993-03

8.  University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs.

Authors:  L C Twilley; P Dixon; D Taylor; K Clark
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1994-01

Review 9.  Lexical ambiguity and its role in models of word recognition.

Authors:  G B Simpson
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 17.737

  9 in total
  5 in total

1.  Global context effects on processing lexically ambiguous words: evidence from eye fixations.

Authors:  G Kambe; K Rayner; S A Duffy
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2001-03

2.  LIFG-based attentional control and the resolution of lexical ambiguities in sentence context.

Authors:  Loan C Vuong; Randi C Martin
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2010-10-23       Impact factor: 2.381

3.  Situation-evoking stimuli, domain of reference, and the incremental interpretation of lexical ambiguity.

Authors:  Hoang Vu; George Kellas; Eric Petersen; Kim Metcalf
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-12

4.  The time course of contextual influences during lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from distributional analyses of fixation durations.

Authors:  Heather Sheridan; Eyal M Reingold
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-10

5.  Using puns to study contextual influences on lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence from eye movements.

Authors:  Heather Sheridan; Eyal M Reingold; Meredyth Daneman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-10
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.